9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Advocate for R1 Ms. Swetha Elizabeth Sabor, Advocate For Mr. Shinu J. Pillai, Advocate for R2 Mr. AG. Sathyanarayana , Advocate for R3 ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) 1. On 14.07.2022, this Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 337 / 2022, M.K. Resely & 7 Ors. V. Union Bank of India was instituted before this Tribunal, putting a challenge to the Impugned Judgment of the NCLT, Kochi Bench on 21.01.2022 in MA / 76 / KOB / 2020 in IBA / 240 / KOB / 2019 by which the Respondent No. 3 / Liquidator was allowed to include certain lands owned by the Appellants and given on Lease to the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation in the `Liquidation Estate'. 2. The Company Appeal as above was accompanied by a Condone Delay Application being IA No. 990 / 2022. Whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant Appeal is extracted hereunder: "Set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.1.2022, passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Kochi in MA 76 of 2020 in IBA/240/2019 (CB) and allow the above Appeal, filed by the Appellants" 6. What is reflected from the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2022 is that, the learned Tribunal, had heard the Appellants during the proceedings of MA / 76 / KOB / 2020 and rejected the respective Interlocutory Applications / Intervention Petitions which they have preferred for being permitted to be heard and for grant of other reliefs, before the NCLT. 7. The argument which the Learned Counsel for the Appellant makes to sustain this Appeal is that, since he was heard by the Tribunal, though not being a party to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar from a reading of the relief clause of Appeal as extracted above, the Appellants before this Tribunal have only put a challenge to the Order passed on MA / 76 / KOB / 2020. They have not put a challenge to the Orders, passed on the Applications preferred by them to permit them to intervene. However, merely because of the fact that they were heard or they were described as Additional Respondents, before the NCLT, they will not get the status of being a party to the proceedings which will enable them to file an Appeal. Further, they would not be entitled to be treated as to be an "Aggrieved Person", because, they were conscious of the proceedings, being held, before the NCLT. 11. What is more agonising for us is that, the Appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
